1. Academic Staff Promotion in Australia: Characteristics and Concerns
Prof. Martin Hayden PhD
Southern Cross University, Australia

2. Chapter Structure Introductory remarks Public university sector
Principles underpinning the promotion process
Legislative framework
The academic staff promotion process
Concerns with the process
Appraisal of the process

3. Introductory Remarks
Each university has its own academic staff promotion policies and procedures
There is, however, a system-wide consistency in the approaches adopted
Focus is on the public university sector, which accounts for 90% of all higher education enrolments

4. Public University Sector
A corporate governance structure
Academic staff members are employees of the university – not government employees
Terms and conditions of employment (including for academic promotion) are documented in ‘enterprise agreements’

5. Principles Underpinning the Promotion Process
Reward for merit
Evidence-based decision making
Importance of equity
Flexibility of approach
High level of availability
Performance is assessed transparently against published standards

6. Legislative Framework
Fair Work Act
Age Discrimination Act
Disability Discrimination Act
Racial Discrimination Act
Sex Discrimination Act
Australian Human Rights Commission Act

7. The Academic Staff Promotion Process
Call for applications and appointment of a promotion committee
Preparation of application, based on performance against prescribed standards for teaching, research and service – the standards indicate what is ‘satisfactory’, ‘commendable’ ‘meritorious’ and ‘distinguished’ across the three areas of teaching, research and service
Promotion committee interviews applicants, and then make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor, who makes final decision

8. Concerns with the Process
Should be rewarded/is rewarded (Bexley et al., 2011, p.25).
Ability to attract external funds: 39.0%(should) 82.8% (is)
Research/scholarly activities: 72.4% (should) 74.7% (is)
Effectiveness as a teacher: 82.5% (should) 29.3% (is)

9. Appraisal of the Process
The process meets the UNESCO prescription
There is, however, a perception that research achievement is disproportionately rewarded
There are concerns about the extent of reliance on student feedback as a proxy for teaching effectiveness
Concern for fairness and rigour has made the academic promotion process more bureaucratically burdensome

10. THANK YOU.